Mansholt Lecture: Exploring Dilemmas for Future Land Use

In the presence of about 50 WUR colleagues, findings were shared and discussed of the WUR research report: ‘Key dilemmas on future land use for agriculture, forestry and nature in the EU’. The afternoon was hosted by Simone Ritzer, Programme Manager Wageningen Dialogues and featured insights from Sjoukje Heimovaara, President of the Executive Board of WUR. "It is quite demanding to see issues in their full complexity rather than simplifying them. Nevertheless, I challenge scientists, politicians and leaders to do so," Sjoukje said at the opening. “News nowadays tends to be served in short bites, leaving little room to explain or understand complexity, but we should try to present issues from different perspectives. Society is ready for more than simple solutions. Only by presenting the true complexity will we be able to identify sustainable steps towards a solution.”

Researcher Harriëtte Bos provided context of the research in land use and biomass and emphasised that land is a limited resource and circularity is crucial. Researcher, Petra Berkhout, introduced 3 of the 5 dilemmas; should EU aim for self-sufficiency of biomass, what to do about animal husbandry, and how should policies intervene with consumer behaviours? Later, Bos, Berkhout, and Theun Vellinga, three scientists involved in the research, were asked to stand on a line of agreement to show how they position themselves within the dilemma of animal- compared to plant- based proteins. Standing on different points along this continuum, shows that it is possible to navigate the dilemma even when you don’t stand exactly in the middle. The discussion that followed this activity highlighted the different roles scientists can play in society.

For example, the ‘honest broker’, as Pielke Jr. defines it, navigates different perspectives from the center of a dilemma and aims to tell people the different uses of the research depending on the other persons values. On the other hand, the ‘issue advocate’ picks a side but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are not accepted by parties with different perspectives. Playing the issue advocate requires transparency in your views and an open attitude towards others, and thus not becoming dogmatic. The curiosity scientists naturally have, should prevail.

One of the scientists took the role of an honest broker, standing in the middle of the spectrum, refusing to take a polarizing side. Showing the effects of a variety of choices can effectively help policy makers and government officials. For example, saying “If you want to see this outcome, you should do this, if not, you should do that”. In that way you can provide information to people based on their values. Another scientist decided to position themselves more towards one side of the dilemma. “Being transparent in your views and explaining from what insights that perspective emerged, is also very helpful as a scientist. In the end people don’t see me as someone who’s in favour or against certain measures, they see me more as an economist rather than an ecologist.”

Participants then engaged in open discussions about ways to move beyond the dichotomy in the dilemmas. For example, on consumer behaviour, there is more than merely free will and restricted will. Policies can also target shelf arrangements in supermarkets to stimulate more sustainable and healthy behaviour. It was also mentioned that FMCG-companies are always looking to create value, and this value can go beyond margin. Such new ways of value creation should be explored, while remaining open and curious to others, rather than holding on to a limited frame. Then, a story was shared by an audience member describing that a guest on Wageningen Campus once was surprised that it was possible to order meat in the restaurant. They had such a strong idea that WUR was ‘anti meat’, that just the possibility to order meat softened the discussion and allowed for explorative conversations on more sustainable meat production and consumption.

The dilemma approach helps not only to better understand others’ views but also helps to come up with creative multifaceted solutions to overcome a complex dilemma. It can just be seen more as a beginning, than as an endpoint. And that’s what we also saw at the drinks: Enough food for thought to explore ways forward in the inspiring setting of WUR’s dialogue centre, Omnia at Wageningen Campus. Omnia has provided an inspiring environment where science and society come together to explore groundbreaking solutions to global challenges. Situated in the heart of the Food Valley; an innovation hub for leading expertise in food science and agriculture, Omnia serves as a powerful connector. Here, researchers, policymakers, industry leaders, and other stakeholders meet to exchange knowledge, examine complex issues from multiple perspectives and collaborate towards a more sustainable future, right in the vibrant Wageningen Campus.